(a) order the buildings listed in the annex;

B. From April 1, 2017 to the ordering date of the above building.

A. On May 31, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant under which the building indicated in the attached Form (hereinafter “instant building”) was leased KRW 15,00,000 as lease deposit, KRW 1,210,00 as rent monthly (including value-added tax), and KRW 1,210,00 as of June 1, 2016 to May 31, 2018 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).

B. Around June 1, 2016, the Plaintiff transferred the instant building to the Defendant, and received KRW 15,000,000 from the Defendant around that time.

C. After the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the rent to March 31, 2017, the Defendant did not pay the rent from April 1, 2017.

On August 22, 2017, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant lease agreement on the ground of the delinquency in rent for at least two years.

The Unitedland Co., Ltd., the controlled entity of the entire building of the building of this case, including the building of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "Ninland"), calculated and imposed the monthly management expenses of the building of this case to the defendant, and filed a lawsuit against the defendant claiming unpaid management expenses, and the lawsuit is currently pending.

[The grounds for recognition] The management expenses (the management expenses before re-distribution: the Incheon District Court 2018Gadan232071 (the management expenses before re-distribution: the Incheon District Court 2017Gauri105732)] / [The items in the evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the instant lease agreement was terminated around August 22, 2017 according to the Plaintiff’s declaration of intention to terminate the contract on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in payment of two or more rents, and the Defendant is obligated to order the Plaintiff to order the instant building. (2) As to this, the Defendant asserted that “the Plaintiff ordered the instant building to the Plaintiff on October 2017,” but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. We examine the fact of the recognition of the first instance judgment on the overdue rent and the claim equivalent to the rent, as well as the prior examination.